Iranian Chill Thread

[dani92]

These people can't think logically. They are so hyped up by nationalistic feelings that these kind of maps gives them meaning and a sense of purpose in life, even if deep down they know that it will never become reality.

It’s not just about the reality but these people like ahwazis they put lands that inhabitants by Arabs who aren’t ahwazi plus Persian and luri lands I mean how come they don’t know the lands they put on their imaginary maps are not even ahwazi?!.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Probably from sitting too much. God knows it wasn't from heavy lifting unless he was trying to pick up Lady Ashton!

well he had is from before meeting lady Ashton.
and no heavy work is not the only way . for years sitting behind the not so ergonimic table and chairs and defendeing an idea and ideology while being attacked from everywhere is another way

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

well he had is from before meeting lady Ashton.
and no heavy work is not the only way . for years sitting behind the not so ergonimic table and chairs and defendeing an idea and ideology while being attacked from everywhere is another way

Did you not see where I wrote he "probably got it from sitting to much"? The Lady Ashton part of my comment was a joke! He needs to take some time away from grinning from ear to ear in front of our enemies to stretch and get some much needed exercise! On second thought I hope he suffers much pain every day for the rest of his miserable life. Dirty little worm of a man that he is!

 

[Hack-Hook]

Did you not see where I wrote he "probably got it from sitting to much"? The Lady Ashton part of my comment was a joke! He needs to take some time away from grinning from ear to ear in front of our enemies to stretch and get some much needed exercise! On second thought I hope he suffers much pain every day for the rest of his miserable life. Dirty little worm of a man that he is!

if it was not for him sitting behind those table , then people were singing different tunes these days.

 

[TheImmortal]

The worry is not necessarily that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against it, but that a nuclear powered Iran would increase its agressive posture in the region and that it, under its nuclear umbrella, would further bolster and advance its regional-military footprint.

That is a lie propagated by world powers and MSM to deny Iran (another countries) nuclear weapons.

China and US killed each other in Korea, both when they were nuclear weapons powers and neither umbrellas helped the other in that war. Stop promoting Western propaganda.

If Iran would have been nuclear, how likely do you think it would've been for Israel to strike Iranian targets in Syria and elsewhere?

Very very likely. You seriously think if Iran had nukes Israel would not attack Iran in Syria to prevent Iran surrounding it? What is this amateur analysis.

You guys are in a rude awakening thinking nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from getting attacked in other countries. Russia got attacked by Turkey. US got attacked by Iran (Iran-Iraq war and 2003 Iraq war).

Nuclear weapons prevent the fall of ones territorial integrity to ones enemy as a desperate last measure. It doesn’t prevent conventional conflicts with your enemy (see Pakistan and India) nor does it prevent extra territorial or proxy war conflicts far away from ones borders.

So this thinking that if iran had nukes, israel would be afraid to attack it in Syria because of some “escalation ladder” is nonsense. What is Iran going to say, “you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you?” Israel will respond “you nuke me and I’ll nuke Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom”.

There is no escalation ladder in a minor conventional conflict or shadow war (which is what Syria is) that would lead to nuclear war that Iran would employ because the situation doesn’t warrant such a escalation.

I mean Iran already has lost generals, scientists and according to Iranian official had its nuclear facility attacked 5 times with explosions which a nuclear attack on a facility is grounds for use of nuclear weapons if it leaks radiation.

So again the fallacy that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb it will be untouchable and can stream roll thru the Middle East is a a lie promoted by the West to justify sanctions regime and containment protocol. Has no basis in reality or historical precedent.

 

[Sineva]

Did you not see where I wrote he "probably got it from sitting to much"? The Lady Ashton part of my comment was a joke! He needs to take some time away from grinning from ear to ear in front of our enemies to stretch and get some much needed exercise! On second thought I hope he suffers much pain every day for the rest of his miserable life. Dirty little worm of a man that he is!

Well,I for one appreciated your double entendre,even if no one else did.

 

[Surenas]

That is a lie propagated by world powers and MSM to deny Iran (another countries) nuclear weapons.

China and US killed each other in Korea, both when they were nuclear weapons powers and neither umbrellas helped the other in that war. Stop promoting Western propaganda.

Get off your high horse of this western propaganda shtick and try to see things clearly. They don't need to inject propaganda into the equation when their pro-active Middle East policy already is formed around containing Iran and to prevent Israel from losing its nuclear supremacy. The nuclear club is closed for multiple reasons, but this factor related to the nature of regional competition makes it unique from all other global theatres.

Very very likely. You seriously think if Iran had nukes Israel would not attack Iran in Syria to prevent Iran surrounding it? What is this amateur analysis.

Indeed. A nuclear Iran would get sparred from being attacked by the likes of Israel in places such as Syria.

You guys are in a rude awakening thinking nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from getting attacked in other countries. Russia got attacked by Turkey. US got attacked by Iran (Iran-Iraq war and 2003 Iraq war).

Listen. Nobody says that a nuclear power isn't going to get embroiled in some localized and contained shooting contest with another actor.

But how many countries have a shortage of strategic depth as Israel has? How many countries have as zealously as Israel prevented other countries from obtaining nuclear capability (against Iraq in the 80s and Syria in 2007)? How many countries have such concept as qualitative military edge centred around their military posture and self-perceived needed ability to get on top of regional developments in order to prevent a strategic calamity?

The following piece pretty much reflects their thinking:

Ehud Barak, Israel’s former Defense Minister, stated in an August 2012 interview to the Israeli paper Haaretz that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, ‘‘no one will be able to stop it when it provokes neighbors and rivals. What happened in the Rhineland in 1936 will be child’s play compared to what happens with Iran.’’

Second, Iran might embolden its allies, like Syria (assuming a government friendly toward Iran survives the civil war) and non-state actors like Hezbollah,to pursue their aims with greater militancy including the use of rocket attacks and terrorism against Israel beneath the comfort of an Iranian nuclear umbrella. In an August 2012 interview, then-Defense Minister Barak said ‘‘if we will need to take action against Hezbollah and a nuclear Iran would declare that an attack on Hezbollah constitutes an attack on Iran, what we shall do then?’’ Barak further stated that non-state actors ‘‘cannot be deterred in the way that countries can exert deterrence against one another. The implications of such a development would be extremely grave.’’

You may try to dismiss it as propaganda or alarmism, but this fear of them is sincere and lies at the heart of their actions. They haven't gone through all this effort to mobilize the world and all kinds of covert actions to prevent a nuclear Iran because of non-existing calculations.

 

[jauk]

That is a lie propagated by world powers and MSM to deny Iran (another countries) nuclear weapons.

China and US killed each other in Korea, both when they were nuclear weapons powers and neither umbrellas helped the other in that war. Stop promoting Western propaganda.



Very very likely. You seriously think if Iran had nukes Israel would not attack Iran in Syria to prevent Iran surrounding it? What is this amateur analysis.

You guys are in a rude awakening thinking nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from getting attacked in other countries. Russia got attacked by Turkey. US got attacked by Iran (Iran-Iraq war and 2003 Iraq war).

Nuclear weapons prevent the fall of ones territorial integrity to ones enemy as a desperate last measure. It doesn’t prevent conventional conflicts with your enemy (see Pakistan and India) nor does it prevent extra territorial or proxy war conflicts far away from ones borders.

So this thinking that if iran had nukes, israel would be afraid to attack it in Syria because of some “escalation ladder” is nonsense. What is Iran going to say, “you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you?” Israel will respond “you nuke me and I’ll nuke Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom”.

There is no escalation ladder in a minor conventional conflict or shadow war (which is what Syria is) that would lead to nuclear war that Iran would employ because the situation doesn’t warrant such a escalation.

I mean Iran already has lost generals, scientists and according to Iranian official had its nuclear facility attacked 5 times with explosions which a nuclear attack on a facility is grounds for use of nuclear weapons if it leaks radiation.

So again the fallacy that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb it will be untouchable and can stream roll thru the Middle East is a a lie promoted by the West to justify sanctions regime and containment protocol. Has no basis in reality or historical precedent.

Your analysis *was* correct at some point. Maybe applicable 10 years ago. You are discounting the relatively modern thinking of a substantially lower bar where countries *may/can/will* use nuclear weapons--mostly small and tactical. The modern thinking is small tactical nuclear warheads may/can/will be used as a practical option in combat. So, no, it *is* imperitave that Iran arm itself appropriately. I'm confident it already has. As such, you are final thinking is correct, however. Counterintuitively, the nuclear arguments presented by the West is a mere vector to cut Iran's posture down to size and not pertinent to real war scenarios. I strongly advise all to reincorporate usage of tactical nukes in combat as a real thing/option.

 

[Aspen]

Israel may resort to nuclear weapons if such high intensity conflict occurs.

You would be surprised how high the threshold is to use a nuke.

There is basically no legit excuse to nuke another country unless they nuke you first. Hence why bombing Japan is still controversial even today.

 

[Dariush the Great]

Israel may resort to nuclear weapons if such high intensity conflict occurs.

Let's say Israel declares war on Iran and attacks Natanz and Iran responds by bombing IDF headquarters,airbases etc. Are you telling that in return the Israelis would launch nukes towards Iran if the costs get too high for them?

That sounds like bullshit.

 

[Aspen]

Let's say Israel declares war on Iran and attacks Natanz and Iran responds by bombing IDF headquarters,airbases etc. Are you telling that in return the Israelis would launch nukes towards Iran if the costs get too high for them?

That sounds like bullshit.

I always got a chuckle about Israel boasting about its second strike capability. It is the most useless second strike capability in the world.

100 non-nuclear precision missiles from Iran will wipe out every high value target in Israel. Even if Israel was stupid enough to nuke back in response to a conventional attack, a second strike capability is only useful when you have a country left to return to. Iran's ability to make Israel a moonscape is not an empty threat because Iran is simply too vast for any number of missiles from Israel to do anything except invite more missiles against Israel.

 

[Stryker1982]

Let's say Israel declares war on Iran and attacks Natanz and Iran responds by bombing IDF headquarters,airbases etc. Are you telling that in return the Israelis would launch nukes towards Iran if the costs get too high for them?

That sounds like bullshit.

That's not what was said. If we bombed Tel Aviv and Haifa with Shahab-3's indiscriminately, then maybe

You would be surprised how high the threshold is to use a nuke.

There is basically no legit excuse to nuke another country unless they nuke you first. Hence why bombing Japan is still controversial even today.

You can't always make these assumptions equally between nations. You can't know what they are thinking. Their survival is at stake and may act irrationally or aggressively.

 

[Aspen]

That's not what was said. If we bombed Tel Aviv and Haifa with Shahab-3's indiscriminately, then maybe

You can't always make these assumptions equally between nations. You can't know what they are thinking. Their survival is at stake and may act irrationally or aggressively.

Yeah but I think even the Israelis as dumb as they are would know that a few nukes would do a LOT more damage to Israel than Iran.

One nuke will affect every single person and animal living in Israel, one nuke in Iran may not even be heard by the nearest village.

 

[Dariush the Great]

That's not what was said. If we bombed Tel Aviv and Haifa with Shahab-3's indiscriminately, then maybe

I think you believe the Israelis will fly directly towards Natanz, bomb it and fly away as quickly as possible. Right? Do you believe that?

That is not what will happen. To bomb Natanz (and other places) you need to bomb air-defences, military bases,airports, chain of command etc to prevent an immediate disruption to the aerial campaign and hamper any retaliation. So within a few hours Israel would have already indiscriminately bombed Iran. It would be well within international rights for Iran to respond in the same manner.. tough luck for Israel as it is only 100km's wide it would suffer an unimaginable destruction at the hands of Iranian missiles. The world (apart from the US) wouldn't condemn Iran for responding to the Israeli aggression. That is the whole problem here for the Israeli hawks.

Btw, Israel does not have the capability to carry out an extensive aerial bombing campaign of Iran. Iranian territory is too far and too huge for Israel to take on. They need the US onboard with them but that is not going to happen under Biden.

Conclusion : indiscriminate Iranian bombing of Israel is well within all International norms.

 

[NightStrike]

I think you believe the Israelis will fly directly towards Natanz, bomb it and fly away as quickly as possible. Right? Do you believe that?

That is not what will happen. To bomb Natanz (and other places) you need to bomb air-defences, military bases,airports, chain of command etc to prevent an immediate disruption to the aerial campaign and hamper any retaliation. So within a few hours Israel would have already indiscriminately bombed Iran. It would be well within international rights for Iran to respond in the same manner.. tough luck for Israel as it is only 100km's wide it would suffer an unimaginable destruction at the hands of Iranian missiles. The world (apart from the US) wouldn't condemn Iran for responding to the Israeli aggression. That is the whole problem here for the Israeli hawks.

Btw, Israel does not have the capability to carry out an extensive aerial bombing campaign of Iran. Iranian territory is too far and too huge for Israel to take on. They need the US onboard with them but that is not going to happen under Biden.

Conclusion : indiscriminate Iranian bombing of Israel is well within all International norms.

Nobody said Israel will or can attack Natanz. What I said was a high intensity conflict may cause Israel to use nuclear weapons against Iran. How that conflict begins is anyone’s guess.